Arctic heat waves cause exceptional Greenland melt, says new

I might be old, but my memory is pretty good still.

That's True, but remember the days when nobody cared much about the winter ice? It was always about the Summer minimum.

Now it's 'OMG the ice is low in the winter, we must run and tell the king.'

But let's wonder why we're not concerned about the summer minimum anymore.

Remember when the summer Minimum set a record in 2012? OMG!

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk
[/video]

But then the next year there was a record rebound of ice in the summer minimum. Biggest ever. (ever being the 30 year satellite record, of course, but when it's warming that's never mentioned, so what the Hell)

And we stopped hearing about the Summer minimum. Now it's OMG the Winter...the winter...it's only about the winter. Never before. Faster, stronger, higher, lower, warmer colder, never before seen.
But let's look at the graph.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Notice how this year is following last year and notice the summer minimum was a little low, but no big deal last year.

And let's remember we're coming out of two consecutive El Nino years before we start running screaming down the streets from shadows of Manbearpig.

Come to think of it don't you follow ENSO? I heard it's starting to look like it may be flipping into La Nina. How credible do you find that?

Because if it happens not even the data rewriters at NOAA are going to be able to find any more of these "warmest months ever."

I am not looking at anything graphic you have posted, I don't know the source, I will only take it from the source.

Land based thermometer readings are faulty and erroneous, I don't and will not look at that data.

If it isn't ice cores, or satellite data don't bother.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I might be old, but my memory is pretty good still.

Well I'll take your word for it about the memory, but your cognizance may be off more than a bit.

Either that or I don't understand you.

Somebody thought there was cooling. You said I tried to sell that. I called bullshit.

You sent me to a link where I'm talking about the climate pause, not cooling.

And you were hella smug about it too.

So do better than that or once more, 'Bullshit.'

Title: Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels COOLS planet, says NASA
Category: Environmental
Posted By: N_Fiddledog

What global warming? Alaska is headed for an ice age as scientists report state's steady temperature decline

really not cherry picking by excluding land based temp readings. They use the US dataset for most of it and those are the most prone to error. Have you seen them? they are greatly affected by micro climates, they are on roof tops in the city, by AC units etc. This is not an accurate measurement of surface temperature. That is why they should be excluded, it just isn't reliable.

Nice try, but everyone is able to follow that link.

$1:

Title: Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels COOLS planet, says NASA
Category: Environmental
Posted By: N_Fiddledog

Clearly, nothing about the 'pause'.

Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced - which causes the global greenhouse effect.

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

New research from the Alaska Climate Research Center shows that since the beginning of the 21st century, temperatures in the snow covered land of Alaska are actually getting colder - bucking the overall global warming trend.

In the Last Frontier, where temperatures can get as cold as 50 degrees below zero, local residents have experienced the increasing chill and scientists now confirm that the Northwest state is indeed seeing a temperature drop.

uwish uwish:

really not cherry picking by excluding land based temp readings. They use the US dataset for most of it and those are the most prone to error. Have you seen them? they are greatly affected by micro climates, they are on roof tops in the city, by AC units etc. This is not an accurate measurement of surface temperature. That is why they should be excluded, it just isn't reliable.

And the Berleley project specifically excluded data that was a certain percent off neighbouring measurements, to exclude those microclimates. It made no difference to the results.

And the US data set isn't the only one, there are also sets from Canada, the UK and Japan. And they all say the same thing. As a Geologist, you understand what it means to have multiple independent data sets that agree with each other.

Trends in all data sets are the same. And they agree with the satellite trends!

I don't understand how you can see all these things, and think for a moment that they say the opposite of what they say.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I think I read somewhere that not only was February 2016 the hottest of the 137 Februaries recorded, it was also hotter than 134 of the recorded March averages.

Pretty much the height of El Nino, so I don't expect those kind of anomalies will continue past March or April. Wonder if we'll see La Nina this year?

the satellite data doesn't show it. The only thing that shows it is surface based land temperature measurements. That's the point! in the sat data you can see two trends, one before the 1998 el nino and one after. Yes this year there was a peak this year, but it's just one year like it did back in 1998. Only 37 years of sat temp data...

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Quality%20class%201:%20Satellite%20record%20of%20recent%20global%20air%20temperature%20change

if it isn't satellite temperature data, I don't trust it. If it isn't ice core data, I don't trust it. We need to be talking about scale, not this year or last year or even 30 years!

You do realize that it take at least 30 years of weather to be taken as a 'climate' data point right? so really, we shouldn't even be talking about this for another 30 years, at least then you will have two points the minimum it takes to draw a line! which is basically what they do with surface temps readings.

AND that doesn't negate the fact, ice cores show a sig higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (15 TIMES) and almost NO difference in temperature from today? hum seems to break the hypothesis to me! (that increased CO2 emissions results in dangerous global warming).

Schmidt and Karl, like the Met Office this side of the pond, say there has been rapid surface warming over the past 19 years. If so, where on Earth did it come from? The laws of thermodynamics are not up for repeal. The official theory is that CO2 warms the atmosphere and the atmosphere warms the surface. But for almost 19 years the satellites show that the lower atmosphere has barely warmed. Even if there had been CO2-driven warming higher up, for the official theory says we should expect a faster warming rate in the mid-troposphere than at the surface, how could that higher-altitude warming have magically reached the surface through a lower troposphere that has not warmed at all?